Talk:Donald Trump

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

The article has for years included two sentences and a photo about the removal of protesters from D.C.'s Lafayette Square park in June 2020 and Trump's subsequent photo-op with a Bible. Should this content be removed? 22:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Closure request already exists — see Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Trump's 2020 photo op at St. John's Church. Rmv RfC ID. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

More information The two sentences with accompanying photo and cited sources ...

The two sentences with accompanying photo and cited sources

In June 2020, during the George Floyd protests, federal law-enforcement officials used tear gas and other crowd control tactics to remove a largely peaceful crowd of lawful protesters from Lafayette Square, outside the White House.[1][2] Trump then posed with a Bible for a photo op at the nearby St. John's Episcopal Church,[1][3][4] with religious leaders condemning both the treatment of protesters and the photo opportunity itself.[5]

Close

• No as OP. Per consensus #37, the two sentences (with the accompanying illustration of Trump accompanied by GEN Milley in combat uniform) are a summary-level mention of an event that has a lasting impact on his long-term presidential legacy. There is also no other place to link to the main article Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. It was major headline news at the time (see the references in the main article) and has since been mentioned as a portent of things to come, particularly in connection with the January 6 United States Capitol attack, in articles and books (among them Baker/Glasser's The Divider, pg. 468–483, and Leonig/Rucker's I alone can fix it, pg. 164–170). The event is also has also been back in the news since last year in connection with the actions of ICE in Democratic-run cities and the Trump administration's planned deployment of federal troops to Democratic-run cities and states. A selection of 2025 cites: New York Times 1, New York Times 2, New Yorker, UPI, Guardian1, Palm Beach Post, Mother Jones, Washington Examiner op-ed via American Enterprise Institute, Guardian2, Al Jazeera, Sojourners, WaPo.
  Note: The material was first removed from the article on December 26, 2025. I challenged the removal and reinserted the material, but it was removed again. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC) The last comment was added January 26, 2026. The original RfC expired on February 8 when Legobot removed the RfC tag. Restarting to request uninvolved closure. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. WP:RFCBEFORE is satisfied. There is no existing consensus covering this content. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 17:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  RFCBEFORE clearly specifies that editors should try to resolve things by discussion first. There is an open thread addressing this point which is still active. Riposte97 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

• No There's enough citations above that this is clearly notable. Loki (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• Yes: it was a trivial incident, a media bubble...!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
• No per Space4TCatHerder. It's a clearly notable incident from his first term. --DragonBrickLayer (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
• Yes in the context of Trump's entire life, these details are clearly trivial. They are more appropriately addressed on his presidency page (which they are). Riposte97 (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
• No per Space4Time3Continuum2x and Sirfurboy. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC) [revised 10:00, 10 January 2026 (UTC)]
• No - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. What was notable for an article is notable. Notability does not fade away. We have a full page on this at Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church, and unless that can be deleted at AfD, it is clearly the consensus opinion that this is and always was a notable event that should be treated in summary style in the parent article (this one). It is discussed in histories (Harvey, 2022) and elsewhere. It is a matter of significant historical import inasmuch as it is emblematic of Trumps tapping into anti-intellectualism in American evangelicalism to place himself as the most prominent force in American white evangelical politics to date. That is how historians such as Harvey are discussing it. A failure to even mention it would be utterly reprehensible.
  Harvey, Michael (11 April 2022). Donald Trump in Historical Perspective: Dead Precedents. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-57257-5.
  Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
• No per Space4Time3Continuum2x. Lafayette Square should stay here. Mr. Trump appeared to exploit the spotlight. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
• No I am surprised by the amount of sources that Space4TCatHerder was able to find about this, and the more recent sources that discuss this in the context of present events. I was ambivalent about this at first, but seeing the amount of sources that refer to this in 2025 when discussing present events, it seems to clearly satisfy notability requirements for mentioning here. I also agree that the page for Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church establishes the importance of this event that it has its own page on it and survived AfD with a speedy keep. BootsED (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
• No, it has significant and sustained coverage, sufficient that a relatively brief paragraph can't be called undue. --Aquillion (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
• No: This photo and the two accompanying sentences should not be removed: This was a major event displaying Mr. Trump's character. FYI, I prefer to split the secont paragraph into two, as, "Trump then posed with a Bible for a photo op at the nearby St. John's Episcopal Church.[556][558][559] Religious leaders condemned both the treatment of protesters and the photo opportunity itself.[560]": As one sentence, not two, it sounds like the religious leaders who made negative comments might have been at the event. Splitting that sentence into two make it clearer and easier to read. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
• No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-24126-0 (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
• No. Clearly notable part of his presidency given the citations about this moment so should be included. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
• Yes – This is a trivial event that, while covered at the time, has no longlasting or sustained importance or coverage. It is one of many, many artifically generated contraversies involving this President. Beyond that, its neutrality in form is disputable. It is false to say or imply (as this text does) that the square was cleared for a "photo op". 1; 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcgaylor (talk • contribs) 13 January 2026

  The IG report addresses only actions taken by the Park Police, not by other federal forces at the scene, and it doesn't mention that the demonstrators were there legally (the curfew started at 7 p.m., the Secret Service began moving against demonstrators at 6:16). Citing your AP source: The report determined that the decision to clear the protesters was justified, but that law enforcement agencies on the scene failed to effectively communicate with each other and failed to communicate warnings to the protesters about the impending crackdown. Several different law enforcement agencies moved ahead of schedule and started engaging with protesters before the protesters had been sufficiently warned. ... The report details how on June 1, a contingent from the Bureau of Prisons arrived to the scene late, didn’t receive a full briefing and used pepper pellets on protesters "contrary to the USPP incident commander’s instructions." Citing NPR: The report, however, "does not clear law enforcement on use of force and acknowledges problem with its response. ... This report does not address allegations of individual use-of-force incidents, as those are the subject of separate inquiries as well as ongoing lawsuits." Two of the problems it pointed to included: "the U.S. Secret Service's deployment before the USPP had begun its dispersal warnings", and "the USPP's failure to provide dispersal warnings that were loud enough for everyone to hear and that told protesters where to exit before the clearing operation began". Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  None of that has anything to do with the content of this RFC or my comment. The sources I cited make clear that the clearing of the square and Trump's walk to the Church were separate events, with the latter not causing the former. Discussions surrounding the alleged legality of the "protests" or the actions of law enforcement are irrelevant to my comment or the sentences we're here to discuss.

  The sources make clear that all agencies were there in support of the mission to install fencing, but claims there was poor coordination between the various agencies invovled. Jcgaylor (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• Yes. Support for Riposte97 above and other editors. No need to fully replicate this photo which is already displayed on sibling Trump articles; remove the image along with the surrounding text there since it is a redundant replication of material already fully present on sibling Trump articles at this time on Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
• Yes - it's fading in public awareness, as new events occur during Trump's second term. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

  Fading public awareness is not the criterion against which we judge the applicability for information in an encyclopaedic article. What would be the point of only telling people what they are already aware of? The question is whether it is WP:DUE and that is a matter of the event's historical significance as indicated by its inclusion in historical sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  That's not quite true. While page notability does not fade, we do not judge content for inclusion by its prevalence in 'historical' sources. We weight it in proportion to the coverage given in the highest-quality RS. The most recent biographical sources seem to treat this as a flash-in-the-pan. Riposte97 (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  It is precisely true, whatever your feelings about it. We are influenced by sources, not by public awareness, as I said. If you want to make the case we should ignore the historical coverage already noted above and below (Baker & Glasser 2022), (Leonig & Rucker, 2021), (Harvey, 2022), (Allin, 2020), or significant coverage in other sources such as Rhode, D. (2024) Where Tyranny Begins - The Justice Department, the FBI, and the War on Democracy Taylor & Francis, and if you want to try to make a case that its appearance in journal articles and other histories does not make this permanently significant, then place your comment next to comments citing such sources, not against a comment arguing this may be omitted because it is fading in public awareness. Once again, public awareness is not a valid criterion. If anything, it is an argument as to why an encyclopaedic article has a duty to cover such a notable event. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I am disturbed by the coverage of this incident. The tone of many commentators seems to be alibi-ing arson and implying Trump was a fascist because he held the Bible the wrong way. This was a media bubble...Jack Upland (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

  Wrong location? Is this the rationale for your !vote above ⇈? Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• No, the lasting significance to Trump's biography of his personally escalating the response to demonstrators, publicly involving leaders of the military, then posing with a bible outside the church weighted with historical implications, is well shown by the the recent sources linked by Space4TCatHerder. It is also shown in the section on "Donald Trump's Legacy" by Dana H. Allin in the 2003 International Institute for Strategic Studies book, Survival December 2020–January 2021: A World After Trump. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. 2023-04-21. ISBN 978-1-000-94754-0. which summarises these actions, and says "n the midst of overlapping crises caused by a global pandemic; consequent economic collapse; racial wounds emerging from four centuries of slavery, civil war and injustice; and bitter political divisions animated by deeply contested visions of American identity, the president had fomented a full-blown crisis of civil-military relations." . . dave souza, talk 17:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  That source focuses on two months, not a full synthesis of his presidency, and dedicates one page (out of ~300) to this event. And if the criteria is a full-blown crisis of civil-military relations, there have been far more dire, frequent and repeated CIVMIL crises since then, which we don't mention once (and most of them would not deserve mention). DFlhb (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

• Yes. Too trivial for this article. One line about the Greenland crisis was just rejected as "overdetail for this biography" but the photo op isn't overdetail? Yes, it is. Bishonen | tålk 09:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC).

  Federal forces teargassing and clubbing protesters demonstrating legally to enable a show of domination isn't trivial. The "Greenland crisis" so far consists of Trump musings and threats dominating the news. Time will tell whether this will actually amount to a crisis or last week's outrage. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

• Yes - It was an important event. But for the main DJT article and with everything else that is going on, it is difficult to see this passing WP:10YT. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - It should also be noted that the paragraph as we have it clearly implies that the protesters were cleared to facilitate the 'photo op'. That is a distortion. As WaPo and others later reported, an Inspector General's report found that decision to clear the square was unrelated to the photo. This is an excellent example of legacy chaff that got funnelled into the page when it was WP:NEWS, and now can't be removed because it's 'longstanding'. It should never have been added in the first place. Riposte97 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
• Yes Agree with O3K that this likely wouldn't pass the WP:10YT. Overall, we should stop trying to decide ourselves "which event [had] a lasting impact on his legacy" (quoting Space4T). It's an indirect, implicit approach where we try to paint a portrait of him by deciding which events would best "illustrate" him and his impact, his approach to protestors or to power. That was never a great approach from a policy standpoint and it's no longer necessary. We can describe his impact directly based on academic sources. Individual events can be mentioned in passing and linked if important, but I'm not sure this event even meets that threshold. The only events that could deserve the weight this photo-op is currently given, are events that directly, on their own, had real-world ramifications. But we really should stop "illustrating" and start describing. DFlhb (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
• No, as the others pointed out, this is quite significant to him, but perhaps slightly change it, such as by adding "some" before religious leaders, or specifying which religious leaders it was that condemned this, as I'm sure it wasn't all of them. Wikieditor662 (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
• Yes, per User:Jack Upland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-44769-7 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
• Remove the photo, keep the text - The incident has lasting coverage so a brief summary is due, but the image/caption gives it too much prominence in a mega-biography. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
• No (keep photo). The photo is iconic, not merely decorative as so many other photos in the article. To remove this photo is to normalize/trivialize the incident. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
• No. As others have shared, the incident has clear notability. The incident is an articulation of the first Trump administrations' views on the appropriateness of using force toward protestors.Cawhee^Talk 00:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Note to closing editor: This close, due on Feb 9, may be offset from an overlapping 'Page split' discussion which also took place on the Talk page discussion at Donald Trump which was titled as "Merge multiple subheadings for ANI listed close request for Bulking down the article". The close for the overlapping discussion indicated an agreement among participating editors that the larger section containing the St. John's Church image should be trimmed. This may affect the closing of the current RfC listed here. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) per Space4TCatHerder and Sirfurboy. The event is clearly of long-term significance. TarnishedPath^talk 23:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• No. Why it should be removed? This is main photo of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• No. The incident is a key event in Trump's first term, and was a factor in his 2020 loss (the image was used in Biden's TV ads, for instance.) Plus, as others have noted, Trump's use of militarized police against protesters here is certainly relevant to today's events. Captainbeetroots (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. The question here is whether this event should still be covered in the top-level biography of Trump, or relegated to coverage only in a subtopic article, and if so, at what level. This topic was moved on 13 May 2025 from First presidency of Donald Trump to Domestic policy of the first Trump administration § George Floyd protests. This organization feels off to me. The Trump administration has policies on agriculture, consumer protections, criminal justice, disaster relief, the economy, education, election integrity, energy, environment, government size and regulations, guns, health care, housing, immigration, LGBTQ rights, and... George Floyd protests?! What's the administrations current 2026 policy on George Floyd protests? In the main biography, this is under § Racial and gender views. It makes sense to have policies on race and gender, but not to have a continuing policy on "George Floyd protests". – wbm1058 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

If your argument is that the image and its supportive prose might look better if moved to a subtopic page, then I'm agreeing that you are being very eloquent on this issue. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived until closure of RfC:Transgender persecution?.

Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY WP:MOSLEAD, shouldn't "persecution of transgender" Americans be covered in the body, if it is in the lead? Or more precisely, it shouldn't have been included in the lead unless it were covered in the body first.

The body includes this paragraph, under social, relating to transgender people: Donald Trump#Social

Stating that this is persecution in WP:VOICE seems to amount to original editor analysis (even if it is correct), unless the terminology is sourced and used in the body (and not from something like an op-ed). At the moment, there is only a link to a main article Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration in the body.

It might make more sense to rephrase this as "restriction of transgender rights" or "targeting of transgender rights" etc etc.

Zenomonoz (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Has this been previously discussed in the archive? DN (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

For those having trouble finding it, it's in the second to last paragraph.

"Trump began his second presidency by initiating mass layoffs of federal workers. He imposed tariffs on nearly all countries at the highest level since the Great Depression and signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. His administration's actions—including its targeting of political opponents and civil society, persecution of transgender people, mass deportation of immigrants, and extensive use of executive orders—have drawn over 550 lawsuits challenging their legality."

DN (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Here is how this is presented in the body, I would say LEADFOLLOWS isn't very likely a concern by the looks of it.

"Through a series of executive orders and other actions, Trump banned trans people from the military; restricted or defunded gender-affirming healthcare; opposed inclusive language; censored research and education materials; targeted schools, universities, and cultural institutions accused of promoting what his government calls "gender ideology"; barred transgender athletes from sports; and required U.S. passports to state transgender people's sex assigned at birth."

DN (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that definitely feels like enough for WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Loki (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

'Persecution' is a bit of a loaded term, though. I'd support substituting that on POV/SYNTH grounds. Riposte97 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Considering there is a Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration article, I'm curious as to what exactly those POV/SYNTH grounds would be. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, if content from that article were included in this one, sure. But it's not. Riposte97 (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Because the lead summarises the contents of this article, and we don’t put things in WikiVoice like that if they aren’t in the sources of the article. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

There's no rule that I'm aware of saying we have to use the exact wording of the sources. Trump pushed for restrictions on transgender Americans in nearly every arena; he targeted transgender and nonbinary people; Trump's attack on trans rights; Trump declared war on the transgender community; and Donald Trump is already making good on his promise to persecute trans people zealously. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean, I could link you numerous guidelines: WP:BLPSTYLE, "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking". Zenomonoz (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to what the issue is. "...unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources". Are you challenging the reliability of the sources used? DN (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

No, I am stating that the body content of this article (Donald Trump) does not use the term persecution regarding the second term in the body. MOS:LEAD is quite clear that the lede is a summary of the body of the article. The term persecution lacks precision, and doesn't appear in the the body of this article. Whether or not disallowing transwomen from inclusion in women's sports, or restricting youth from accessing hormones, constitutes persecution, is quite subjective. Editors shouldn't be doing their own analysis to rewrite this in WP:VOICE. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, from this article...

""Through a series of executive orders and other actions, Trump banned trans people from the military; restricted or defunded gender-affirming healthcare; opposed inclusive language; censored research and education materials; targeted schools, universities, and cultural institutions accused of promoting what his government calls "gender ideology"; barred transgender athletes from sports; and required U.S. passports to state transgender people's sex assigned at birth."

You agree the sources are reliable and that Trump is well known for his actions and stances against transgender people, but you don't like using that word because it isn't used in the body? I feel like the goal posts keep shifting. DN (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Do we have reliable secondary sources calling that conduct 'persecution'? Riposte97 (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

An Atlantic article using this exact word is linked three comments above this, as are numerous other secondary sources using equivalent wording. ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you referring to the opinion piece linked by Space? I think we'll need to do better than that. Riposte97 (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's your problem in a nutshell: all of your Wikipedia edits are concerned with reiterating what you think about things. It's rather tiresome; you should stop. ~2026-11347-37 (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you the same person commenting above? If so, I'd encourage you to log into an account. It will make discussions easier to follow. Riposte97 (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Genuinely curious what a change in wording here, that goes with the guidelines, would look like. How would for example you write it?

'Persecution' is very loaded language, but potentially factually correct as well?

'Diminishing of rights' for trans people may be considered more factual, but I can't think of a way to express it that isn't loaded. PalAlice (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Anyone can make an article on Wikipedia. Such articles are time and time again filled with biased falsitudes with citations from left-wing organizations only. ~2026-11508-58 (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

So that's why you're here. Thanks for clarifying. DN (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, this is at least four stone's throws away from Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Substitute it with what? Oppression, discrimination, segregation? Definitions of persecution: the act or practice of persecuting especially those who differ in origin, religion, or social outlook. Hostility and ill-treatment, especially on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation or political beliefs. Definition of persecute: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I offered two options in my original post. IMO, the term persecution becomes too subjective when we are talking about the Trump admin not allowing transwomen to compete in women's sports. It's not something that belongs in WP:VOICE based upon the guidelines for a WP:BLP. If this term were being used heavily in the RS (and I don't mean op-eds), and then used in the body of the article, then it might make sense per MOS:LEAD. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

There's a lot more listed there than banning from sports competition. There is plenty to support the usage of the word persecution based on the simple definition of the term. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Trump anti-LGBTQ actions are also mentioned in the first term domestic policy section: "His administration rolled back key components of the Obama administration's workplace protections against discrimination of LGBTQ people.^[185] His attempted rollback of anti-discrimination protections for transgender patients in August 2020 was halted by a federal judge after a Supreme Court ruling extended employees' civil rights protections to gender identity and sexual orientation.^[186]" Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

The part in the lead is about his second term, so this is irrelevant to the discussion. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Any other users want to weigh in, considering the discussion above? Maybe the BLP noticeboard could offer additional input. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This is probably best discussed on the appropriate page for the topic, not here. We should keep the current wording unless there is a change on the other page, otherwise removing "persecution" only for this page would be an NPOV violation and example of editorializing. BootsED (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

We are not bound by any other page. This page is already totally, irretrievably, unique. Riposte97 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course not, but we are bound by policy. Per WP:LOCALCON, a page may not decide to ignore site policy even if discussion agrees to it. For example, if a page discusses the Armenian genoicde, but some editors don't think it qualifies as a genoicde and remove the word from another page to say something else, that would be an example of an NPOV violation by editors injecting their own beliefs in editorial decisions. Whether or not Trump's policy is "persecution" is best left to be decided on the relevant page, but if it is mentioned here and then somebody removes the word "persecution" for the explicit reason that they don't agree with the terminology, that would be an NPOV violation. BootsED (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

That's not really the same thing. If we don't have good sourcing for the assertion on this page (and I remind you that this is a WP:BLP), then the claim should not be included. It's as simple as that, as far as policy is concerned. Riposte97 (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The word "persecution" is fine, we can call a spade a spade here. This isn't the New York Times. Snokalok (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Change to "restriction". GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

At this point it seems the original objection may not have merit. DN (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Support 'restriction' as a sensible way forward. Riposte97 (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

"Restriction" more accurately refers to a limitation, while "persecution" refers more to severe and systematic violations of human rights. Trump has "restricted or defunded gender-affirming healthcare", but he has additionally "opposed" "censored" "targeted" "promoted" "barred" etc...etc... DN (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

That's exactly why it's a loaded term, and should be treated with caution on a BLP. Riposte97 (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Loaded term, as in 4a "carrying a hidden or secondary meaning that is capable of causing unease"? Something other than the act or practice of persecuting especially those who differ in origin, religion, or social outlook? Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

"Restriction of transgender people" is vague to the point of whitewash. It requires an explanation of what they're restricted from doing — see not serve in the armed forces, including forcing out those currently serving; taking away the protection against workplace discrimination and access to medical care; passport policy; denying their existence — CNN has provided a list they say is not exhaustive. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a different term, but "restriction of transgender people" doesn't make grammatical sense.BootsED (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

How about 'took actions inimical to transgender people' or words to that effect? Riposte97 (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Adverse, hostile, or antagonistic. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 12:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

^ preferred to least preferred, in that order. Riposte97 (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I support using a different word to "persecution". I agree with the comment from Riposte97 that "persecution" is a bit of a loaded term. Stating "persecution" in Wiki-voice has a strong negative connotation in my view. Countries which have the death penalty for LGBT people – that's persecution. (See Capital punishment for homosexuality). As per WP:BLP, all biographies should be written conservatively (in the non-political sense of the word). I think the Trump biography should either use attribution, such as described by X and Y as "persecution", or alternatively a different less loaded word should be used for Wiki-voice. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, let's take this line of logic to its natural conclusion. Could we say that German Jews weren't persecuted in the 1930s because they weren't being killed yet? Could we say that black people in the US weren't because they were only being segregated? Snokalok (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It's in extremely bad taste to compare what was done to those groups to what is being discussed here. Riposte97 (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Because everyone was always against the Holocaust. Everyone was always against racial segregation. Whereas when the exact same measures are being performed against trans people in 2026 (segregation, revocation of government documents, bans from military and govt employment, govt compiling of lists of members of said groups, systemic sexual abuse in prison, systemic medical experimentation in prison, state surveillance based on minority status etc etc etc), we have to treat it as different because some people actually support it this time. Snokalok (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that you spend too much time on the Internet. Riposte97 (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, is there a consensus? GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

By my count, it's 7-7. 6-6 if you take out the temps. No consensus Snokalok (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

As for quality of arguments, it seems to boil down to "Systemically targeting a minority group is XYZ manner is well historically precedented as persecuting them" vs "Calling it persecution would imply it's a bad thing to do which is not neutral because half the country says it's a good thing and also it's not like we're shooting them yet". Snokalok (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's questionable whether many of the things that have been positively identified as being done wrt transgender people as a group qualifies as a violation of rights. For example, is there a human right to be a soldier? If there is, is that right legitimately vitiated by having or having had a medical condition such as gender dysphoria? It's at least arguable, and for that reason not appropriate to assert in a BLP. Riposte97 (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

There's not a human right to buy a hot dog but if the hot dog stand puts up a sign saying "Whites only" that's still persecution Snokalok (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, commercial freedom is a widely-recognised human right. There is also a human right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race. Riposte97 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

A. commercial freedom is a widely-recognised human right Cite your sources.

B. There is also a human right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race. Now there is, but in the 1930s when those signs went up, there was no such recognized right, so by your own argument here, it wouldn't be persecution.

C. By your logic then, it wasn't persecution when Jews were banned from serving in the Wehrmacht? After all, plenty of people found it arguable that they weren't really Germans, and thus had no place in the German army. Snokalok (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems as though you are arguing that we should extend the scope of human rights. While that position may be morally correct (I take no position), we just don't do things like that on Wikipedia. Riposte97 (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm arguing that "Freedom from racial/religious discrimination" was not considered a human right in the 1930s, and yet what was done to Jews and Black people in the 30s was still persecution - and that therefore, if one inflicts the same measures on trans people, that is also persecution. Snokalok (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

We seem to have gotten way off track from finding a consensus. Frankly, there is no consensus here, and I'm not to keen on reading any more of Riposte's commentary. DN (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems ripe for a carefully framed survey. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 04:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That would be more helpful, thank you. We should leave the original wording as an option, but words such as *Oppression or *Discrimination might also fit the bill IMO. DN (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep in mind the original complaint here is that the word wasn't used in the body. If they are going to keep complaining about that, then we may need to seek a different resolution. DN (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this BLP use the word persecution when describing Trump's policies towards transgender people? Riposte97 (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• No - The majority of sources do not describe it that way, and more neutral alternatives are obvious. Riposte97 (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Can you please specify what alternatives you would use? SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  I liked Mandruss' suggestion of 'adverse' above. Riposte97 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yes my tools tell me that Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration cites 82 generally reliable sources, and BLP applies just as much there as here. I would want to see a significant source analysis before being persuaded that they are wrong. As a side note, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, it would probably be better to have this as an RM on that article rather than an RfC here. lp0 on fire () 09:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  To add to this, looking at the discussion above, I see that some of the arguments against are on the grounds that the sources aren't cited in this article; I'd like to comment that NPOV (policy) is more important than MOS (guideline), so if that is really the concern, it is better to ignore MOS:OVERCITE and add all 82 GREL citations than to compromise the neutrality of this article. lp0 on fire () 09:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  How many of those 82 generally reliable sources use the word "persecute"? ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 10:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Not as many as I had assumed. While I do agree with TarnishedPath that the sourcing for this most likely exists so I won't oppose, I agree that someone needs to find the sources. lp0 on fire () 10:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Then the proper thing to do would be to withdraw your !vote (or reverse it) until said sources have been produced in sufficient number to warrant this word. What we think "most likely exists" is irrelevant here. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 13:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: I already struck out my !vote. lp0 on fire () 13:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  So you did. Your strikethrough was so short that I missed it. For clarity, I suggest striking more than just the bolded Yes. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 13:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Done. lp0 on fire () 13:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yes per lp0 on fire. Sources obviously existing stating just that and we ought to call a spade a spade. TarnishedPath^talk 09:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Adding to the above, per WP:BLPPUBLIC "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say". TarnishedPath^talk 09:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yes. The only argument I can see for persecution being a word people are against is that it’s a negative word and thus not neutral, as though Wikipedia should be bending over backwards to avoid calling what it is the thing Trump built his second admin off promising to do. Snokalok (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• No. Whether this is, in fact, a spade, is the question; and we should not be in such a hurry to beg it. I would add that "I am disappointed to find the sources aren't actually as extreme as I assumed; but the sourcing most likely exists; so someone needs to find the sources" is precisely the kind of motivated reasoning NPOV is intended to discourage. Regulov (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• No - Per Regulov's logic, also would add that "calling a spade a spade" to me falls under WP:COMMON SENSE and trying to make the argument it is common sense that Trump is persecuting transgender people without an abundant amount of RS supporting that claim borders on original research. MaximusEditor (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Yes per Wikipedia:OBVIOUS. Gamaliel (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  With respect, I don't think you quite have the feel for what WP:OBVIOUS means. There is no one who disagrees that the Ford Thunderbird is a car; but that does not mean everyone will know without being told that it is a car; so it is a good habit to say outright that it is a car. But it is not the case that there is no one who disagrees that the Trump administration is persecuting trans people. I disagree, for one. I am sure it seems obvious to you, much as I am sure it seems obvious to Candace Owens that Brigitte Macron is a trans woman; but I hope you'll agree that that kind of subjective, disputed obviousness isn't itself much of an argument. Regulov (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Why are we comparing how people refer to cars, to how human sexuality is defined? Some might say a Ford Thunderbird isn't just a car or a machine, just like someone might say a person isn't just male or female. See the problem? DN (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Please actually read WP:OBVIOUS; it isn't long. I hope that will make it clearer why I mentioned the Ford Thunderbird. You are shadowboxing. Regulov (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Definitely not! WP:OBVIOUS is applicable when there is a fact. When we talk about persecution here in the sense of wording, that doesn't really apply in the same way that it applies to the Thunderbird. woaharang (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• No, per my source analysis of the references at Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration. To quote: "As far as I can tell, there is not a single news or academic article referring to Trump's policies toward transgender people as persecution, in article voice." The term "persecution" is highly loaded and requires strong sourcing given WP:BLP. This analysis has given me serious WP:NPOV concerns about the title of the Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration article, and this probably needs to be discussed over there as well. I would propose an alternate title such as Transgender people under the second Trump administration. Astaire (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Astaire, please propose moving Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration on the Talk page of that article. For the how-to guide on page moves, see WP:MOVE. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  It took me five minutes to find an article which is explicit about persecution of Trans people: TRUMP'S NEW CRACKDOWN: IT'S 'WAR'. By: PEREZ, ANDREW, SUEBSAENG, ASAWIN, Rolling Stone, 0035791X, Nov2025, Issue 1405 Since retaking power, Trump has worked every day to turn the presidency into a weapon against his enemies. He has tried to censor and silence journalists, activists, comedians, aging rock stars, and law firms. He has sought to jail and deport foreign students for their pro-Palestine speech. He has issued executive orders directing the Justice Department to investigate his political enemies, including one former Trump official who opposed Trump's lies about the 2020 election. He's issued an order calling for people to be prosecuted for burning the flag. He has led an all-out assault on the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and the very existence of transgender people. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  This doesn't use the word "persecution" and Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politics per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. Astaire (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  What else would you call "an all out assault on the existence of Trans people"? Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'd call it a quote from a highly opinion-laden commentary article, in an unreliable source, that is unsuitable for a BLP. Astaire (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes I'm familiar with how requested moves work, which is why I said "this probably needs to be discussed over there as well" pending the outcome of this RFC. Astaire (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• No - This kind of POV pushing is embarrassing for the entire project. I urge people to channel energy on politics to improving other areas of the project that can actually improve Wikipedia. Nemov (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• No - Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral in what content goes into articles. As per WP:NPOV, you can state that 'Person X says that Donald Trump has persecuted transgender people' and so on, but you should not state that 'Donald Trump persecuted transgender people'.

Calling it 'persecution' would cast Trump as a morally bad person, which isn't Wikipedia's to decide. Let news outlets like Fox News call it persecution, but Wikipedia should simply say that he had an 'adverse attitude' towards transgender people. woaharang (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yes Because both it is strongly supported by reliable sources and also is nearly WP:SKYBLUE in obviousness from actions such as stripping trans people of identification, torture in prisons, medical experimentation, censorship of trans literature, etc. I will note, per Batorang, Wikipedia is not a moral arbiter of the extent of the Trump regime's evil. We are a dispassionate trailing indicator of what is reflected in reliable sources. The reliable sources support that the Trump regime is engaged in persecution of trans people. We would be failing in our duties not to also reflect this, dispassionately and without censorship, even if doing so makes Trump supporters uncomfortable that they might be supporting persecutions. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  Which reliable sources (i.e. non-opinion pieces that use "persecution" in article voice) strongly support this wording? Astaire (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• No. Although I personally believe that trans people are being persecuted against in this administration, it's not really appropriate to use this language in the lead of the article. "Persecuted" is an extremely charged word, and, as other editors have demonstrated, most reliable news outlets aren't neutrally referring to this administration's actions as persecution. (SKYBLUE, OBVIOUS, and SPADE don't quite apply here, as the issue being discussed is contentious and not likely to simply be accepted as fact.) As for alternatives, I think "discrimination" is probably the best option. It's less challengeable (by definition) while still conveying the scope of this administration's actions. Other proposed alternatives have problems: Using adverse, hostile, etc. will make the parent sentence read awkwardly ("His administration's actions - including [...] adverse actions towards transgender people" is constructed correctly, but disrupts the flow of the sentence). And using restrictive interpretation isn't quite correct either, as it ignores the (very real) actions and consequences associated with those interpretations. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 17:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
• No - "Persecution" is a strong loaded word to use in Wiki-voice for a neutral biography. As per WP:BLP, all biographies should be written cautiously. An alternative word should be used which can still convey the point that transgender rights have been restricted by Trump. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
• Yes the Doug hole (a crew 4 life) 18:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  DOUGDOUGFOOD, I moved your !vote from the discussion section into the !vote section, assuming that that is the section you meant to put it in. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• We should use the word persecution. This is easy. Let's start by defining our terms.

  Persecution: To pursue in a manner to do harm or cruelty to; especially, because of the victim's race, sexual identity, or adherence to a particular belief.

  That's easy enough to understand. Next, what, exactly are we here to do? We are here to summarize the claims of reliable sources in an informative way so as to convey a reasonable understanding of a given topic. We know we're not supposed to cling to the exact wording of our sources, because WP:COPYVIO is a serious offense that one can get blocked for. So we have to choose our own words to express what those sources say.

  Next, we look at what the sources say. To start with, what is the administration doing?

  1. Trump pushes an end to medical care for transgender youth nationally - NPR
  2. US Air Force to deny retirement pay to transgender service members being separated from the service - The Associated Press
  3. Trump signs executive order banning trans athletes from women’s sports - The Guardian
  4. Pam Bondi wants FBI to place cash bounties on trans activists
  5. ICE Is Treating Trans Immigrants With A New Level Of Cruelty - The Huffington Post
  6. DoJ moves to eliminate sexual abuse protections for LGBTQ+ people in prisons - The Guardian
  7. Trump looking to ban transgender people from having a gun and declaring them ‘mentally ill’: report - The Independent
  8. Trump officials ‘secretly’ changed US health data in ‘gender ideology’ crackdown, researchers allege - Euro News
  9. 6 ways Trump's executive orders are targeting transgender people - PBS News
  10. CDC Ordered to Scrub Website of Words Like ‘Transgender’ and ‘LGBT’ - Gizmodo
  11. WATCH: Trump administration seeks to cut off access to transgender health care for U.S. children - PBS News
  12. Trump Administration Moves to Reject Transgender Identity, Rights - Human Rights Watch
  13. Republican state lawmakers are already targeting trans people with discriminatory policies - The Guardian

  Now we know what is being done. What effect are these actions having? Well, aside from the effects described in the sources above...

    14. Scientists worry about free speech rights under the Trump administration - NPR

    15. Feeling threatened in U.S., transgender Americans look abroad - Los Angeles Times

    16. New Passport Rule Sends Blunt and Sweeping Message to Trans Americans - The New York Times

    17. NYC Hospitals Halt Some Gender Affirming Care After Trump Order - Bloomberg

    18. Some hospitals pause gender-affirming care to evaluate Trump's executive order - NBC News

  How do the sources characterize this? Well, just above, one source used the word 'cruelty' to describe it. Do any others call it that? Yes.

    19. The profiling ‘nightmare’ at the Liberty Hotel shows the ripple effects of state-sponsored cruelty towards trans people - The Boston Globe

    20. The Attack on Transgender Kids Isn’t Just Cruel. It’s an Omen. - Bloomberg

  Another source above describes it as a 'crackdown'. Another used the word 'targeting'. How else do they describe it?

    21. Trump cloaks trans bigotry as protecting women, guts domestic violence programs | Opinion - USA Today

    22. Fears rise among trans people under political persecution - PBS News

    23. How Trump’s Anti-Trans Policies Mirror the WWII Persecution of Japanese Americans - Literary Hub

    24. The Attack on Trans Rights Won’t End There - The Atlantic

    25. Democrats Should Never Again Rise to Trump’s Anti-Trans Bait - The Intercept

  Okay, so we know that the Trump admin is imposing restrictions on trans people, offering bounties on trans activists, removing trans people from the military without benefits, making it harder for trans kids to get medical care, making it harder for trans adults, as well. We know these actions are reducing access to health care for trans kids, that they're frightening trans people who are fleeing the country, that they're making it harder for trans adults to get health care or a passport, that honorable veterans are being pushed out of the military without the benefits they rightly earned, that trans people are being subjected to cruelty by ICE and are losing protections against sexual assault throughout the prison system, and more.

  And we know that the sources are describing these actions as 'persecution', 'cruelty', 'attacks', 'bigotry' and both call them 'anti-trans' and say that they're 'targeted' at trans people.

  Does that fit the definition of 'persecution'? Look at the clauses there:

  1. To pursue in a manner to do harm or cruelty to. The sources straight up call it cruelty multiple times. They also use language like 'anti-trans' and 'targeted' that confirm the 'pursue' part.
  2. especially, because of the victim's race, sexual identity, or adherence to a particular belief. So there's an 'especially' there, which means that the cruel pursuit can be 'persecution' even if this isn't the case, but if this is the case, then it's even more likely to be persecution. What is it that sets trans people apart from cisgendered people and ties them all together? Sexual identity; specifically one's identity as belonging to a particular sex. So we've just checked that 'especially' box.

  And now we've established that sources use the word (keep reading: there are more using the word below) and that the word fits the definition of what's happening according to the sources. Therefore, it is a good word to use.

  So the question now, is what arguments are there against using this word?

  I saw where someone argued that WP:HEADLINE applies, and we cannot count sources as using this word if it's a part of the headline. Except I don't see that sort of claim anywhere in the section. I see it saying that we shouldn't cite headlines for claims of fact and explaining why. But I don't see it say anywhere that we cannot, for example, state facts which are also stated in headlines, or use words that are used in headlines. I don't see it stated there that we cannot let the headline add context to how we read the article, or anything suggesting we must pretend that the headline doesn't exist.

  These sources are using these words; 'cruelty', 'persecution', 'attacks', to describe the Trump admin's actions. Even if it's not the author of a news article writing the headline, that headline is still subject to the publisher's editorial process. If that publisher didn't want to use that word to describe these actions, it wouldn't be there in the headline.

  There are also sources above which don't rightly have a headline, as they're not a news article. One of those sources is literally comparing the Trump admin's actions to the actions of the Roosevelt admin during WWII targeting Japanese Americans under the title of 'persecution'. When you're talking about essay-style sources, the title is almost never a headline, but the actual conclusion of the work.

  But just for argument's sake, let's say that a real, valid interpretation of WP:HEADLINE is that we must pretend the headline doesn't exist. Does that mean we can't cite the body of an article if it uses the same word used in another article's headline? Like this one:

    26. The U.S. Used to Be a Desired Destination for LGBTQ+ Immigrants. Now, Trans Americans Are Fleeing - Time

  The surging efforts to flee from—instead of immigrate to—the U.S. mark a notable break from the past. The country has been regarded as a desired destination for immigrants seeking to escape targeted policies or persecution—including LGBTQ+ people. Now, it’s become a place many trans people, and their families, are trying to leave for the same reason.

  That's a direct accusation, saying that 'targeted policies or persecution' is the reason people trans people are leaving the US.

    27. LGBTQ+ Americans consider move to Canada to escape Trump: ‘I’m afraid of living here’ - The Guardian

  "“So much is happening in the US right now and a lot of it is terrifying,” said Latoya Nugent of Rainbow Railroad, a North American charity that helps LGBTQI+ individuals escape violence and persecution in their home countries."

  Here, that's an interesting choice of charities to approach to talk to, if persecution isn't what's happening.

  "Despite the growing fears, the current Canadian options for those who feel persecuted in the US remain slim. Those who call Rainbow Railroad are told that the most likely options for relocation are via economic pathways or via family reunification."

  The writer also recognizes that many trans people feel persecuted. I don't see any attempt to even imply that these feelings are unwarranted. Indeed, I see descriptions of the things causing these feelings.

    28. Trump has declared war on the transgender community, leaving Americans to seek asylum — from America - The Independent

  "In July, a Canadian judge temporarily blocked deportation of a non-binary American named Angel Jenkel, finding that conditions in the U.S. had changed enough that they might have a “reasonable fear of persecution” (although the case is complex and involves other factors)."

  "Under the Trump administration, crackdowns on the trans community have escalated. Bathroom bans. Healthcare bans. Athletics bans. Bans from the military. A proposed ban on gun ownership. Compulsory misgendering at school. University LGBT+ programs shuttered. LGBT+ non-profits defunded. Blocks on obtaining passports. Child abuse investigations into parents of trans children. Attempts to force trans women into male prisons, where they are at risk of rape.
  In Ansari’s eyes, it all adds up to an interlocking system of oppression that could meet Canada’s definition of “persecution.”"

  So here's a writer reporting that it might even fit the legal definition of 'persecution' under Canadian law. (Also note that word, 'crackdown' again.)

  All in all, it seems like 'persecution' is a word that pops up a lot in the sources, contrary to some claims made here. It seems like it's squarely on the table. So the only real argument left is that it doesn't fit tonally (with no real attempt to define 'tone'). That the word has implications that don't actually apply to what the Trump admin is doing. That begs the question of what other words, (again, culled entirely from the body of articles) could we use? There's 'attacks' and 'cruelty'. There's 'bigotry'. All of those words are less neutral, though. And they're not that common. What is a common word that's used in article bodies (regardless of whether or not it's also used in headlines) to describe this?

    29. The time to panic about anti-trans legislation is now - Vox

    30. Calls for trans genocide are so commonplace they've lost their bite - The National

    31. COUNTERING A PHOBIC FRAME - Columbia Law Review, Suhum Pal

    32. Red Flag Alert for the Anti-Trans Agenda of the Trump Administration in the United States - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security

  Well, we can use 'genocide', it seems. That feels less neutral to me, but the sourcing is there to support it.

  The only really good argument against using the word would be to show that calling it a persecution is somehow controversial. That would require sources arguing that it's not a persecution, and likely at least one source outright stating that calling it a persecution is controversial. I don't see any sources which do this. At least not reliable sources.

  P.S. Don't ping me here. The reason I wrote such a wordy !vote is because this is all I have to say on the matter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  I’m uncomfortable with a lot of your analysis on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR grounds. Riposte97 (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not directly applicable to talk pages says A talk page is the right place to claim that something in an article is SYNTH. The policy does not forbid inferences on talk pages that would be SYNTH if made in an article.

  WP:OR says This policy does not apply to talk pages.

  So no, neither of these policies apply. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  We are here to summarize the claims of reliable sources in an informative way so as to convey a reasonable understanding of a given topic. We know we're not supposed to cling to the exact wording of our sources, because WP:COPYVIO is a serious offense that one can get blocked for. So we have to choose our own words to express what those sources say. - This argument flies in the face of WP:RS, WP:OR, and half a dozen other policies and guidelines. The suggestion that WP:COPYVIO is at all a concern here is just silly. This RFC is about using the word "persecution" - or perhaps another word or short phrase; there is absolutely zero copyright risk for using a single word.

  The rest of your comment is a WP:WALLOFTEXT that entirely ignores WP:RSOPINION.

  Sources #5, #19 and #20 use the word "cruelty" - but they're all opinion articles. So are sources #21, #23, #24, and #25.

  Source #22 is a news article that uses "persecution" only in the headline, and your WP:HEADLINE objection falls flat. But I don't see it say anywhere that we cannot, for example, state facts which are also stated in headlines, or use words that are used in headlines. No one is saying that "we cannot use a word because it is used in the headline" - only that we cannot use this source, for this purpose, because the word is not used in the body and headlines are not reliable sources. There is no other way to interpret WP:HEADLINE.

  Source #26: That's a direct accusation, saying that 'targeted policies or persecution' is the reason people trans people are leaving the US. No, if it were a "direct accusation" then it would have said as much. It's an observation that trans people are leaving the US, and attributing their motivation to fears of targeted policies or persecution - it is not a direct claim that persecution is occurring.

  Source #27: Here, that's an interesting choice of charities to approach to talk to, if persecution isn't what's happening. This is incredibly weak circumstantial evidence, akin to mindreading. The interviewee was selected because the charity has been receiving a surge of inquiries, and that surge is newsworthy. The writer also recognizes that many trans people feel persecuted. I don't see any attempt to even imply that these feelings are unwarranted. I also don't see any use of "persecution" in article voice.

  Source #28: So here's a writer reporting that it might even fit the legal definition of 'persecution' under Canadian law. No, the writer is reporting that a single immigration lawyer believes that it might fit the definition of "persecution". And this lawyer "has seen interest from American trans clients skyrocket" - this is hardly a neutral observer, considering their obvious financial interest in making this claim.

  Sources #29 and #30' are opinion articles. Source #31 doesn't talk about Trump and doesn't call anything a genocide. Source #32 also doesn't call anything a genocide, and this RSN discussion suggests the organization's statements require attribution.

  Astaire (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  Astaire, I've only just started reviewing the sources you call opinions. First on your list is this HuffPo analysis of an investigation they conducted: Over the past six months, HuffPost spoke with about a dozen people — including detainees, lawyers and advocates — and reviewed over 1,000 pages of court documents, medical records and emails. HuffPo doesn't label it "opinion" as they clearly do when appropriate, e.g. in this case, so which criterion are you applying? Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  WP:HUFFPOLITICS is not RS though. Astaire was correct about the rest being opinion. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I meant to respond to that source separately and lumped it together with the opinion pieces when I was writing my comment. I've stricken my mistake. But WP:HUFFPOLITICS says The community considers HuffPost openly biased on American politics, which means that "cruelty" would require attribution; it can't be stated in wikivoice. Astaire (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  In your comment, I noticed that you argued that Trump's actions meet the legal definition for persecution under Canadian law.

  Canadian law doesn't apply uniformly across Wikipedia because there is a massive variance in nationalities, so your argument here falls flat. Some of the articles you quoted are opinion articles which don't carry any significance when quoted. woaharang (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• No — for the reasons given above.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
• Yes per the many good sources given by MjolnirPants (and honestly, I don't know if we even really needed all of them, this seems reasonably clear to me from knowing basic facts about the administration's attitudes towards transgender people). Loki (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Yes per sources provided above. his is something so obvious that debate is kind of silly. Zaathras (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  I find this attitude troubling. Regulov (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sorry that facts trouble you. Zaathras (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  Where there is widespread agreement that a question is important and widespread disagreement about what should be done, debate is anything but frivolous. Regulov (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• No based on WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL Coffeeurbanite (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Yes. WP's policies do not require that the word "persecution" be used in lots of news reports on Trump's policies towards trans people. The WP policies require that "persecution" is an accurate description in our own words for what sources say about Trump's policies (e.g., WP:NOR: "The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in one's own words..."). It is such a word: it's "The act or practice of persecuting on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs that differ from those of the persecutor" (American Heritage Dictionary), where to persecute is "To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs" (ditto). That's what sources describe. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think it matters that the question whether the treatment is in fact ill-treatment or simply fair and appropriate treatment is unsettled. I understand that some think the answer is obvious, that those who think the opposite answer is obvious can only be motivated by hatred, and that those who think the answer is not obvious are at best dim-witted and at worst the haters' catspaws; but if it is obvious, why not simply describe the policies and leave the reader to decide whether they constitute persecution? Regulov (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter whether we do or don't think it's persecution. What matters is what RSs have to say about it. That is what we're summarizing. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  @FactOrOpinion, I agree with you that we shouldn't engage in OR. However, have you considered that the claim that what Trump is doing is persecution fails WP:V? I note that in your comment, the characteristics you list as amenable to persecution (...race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs...) do not include transgender status. Riposte97 (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see how it fails WP:V, given that there are RSs giving descriptions that can reasonably be summarized as persecution. As for the characteristics, I don't take the American Heritage Dictionary's list to be exhaustive, as different dictionaries have somewhat different definitions. Oxford Languages, for example, says "hostility and ill-treatment, especially on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation or political beliefs" (especially ≠ limited to). Collins also uses "especially": "Persecution is cruel and unfair treatment of a person or group, especially because of their religious or political beliefs, or their race," as does Dictionary.com (which does list gender identity): "persistently harassed or oppressed, especially because of religious or political beliefs, ethnic or racial origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation." FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't agree that to summarise the position of most RS as 'persecution' would be reasonable, though. Also, my search of Dictionary.com doesn't reflect yours. Where are you looking? Riposte97 (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  So you and I disagree (shrug). The closer will read and consider what each of us has said. As for Dictionary.com's definition, just click on "persecuting" in "the act of persecuting." FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  It would probably help if you looked at the dictionary cited by FactOrOpinion, i.e., the American Heritage Dictionary. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  Space, read FactOrOpinion's comment again more carefully. Riposte97 (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  If the sources do not say outright in article voice that the administration is engaging in persecution, it is synthesizing and not summarizing for a Wikipedia editor to do so. You are not basing your judgement solely on the dictionary definition, but also on your own sense that the actions described by the sources together merit the term. That is what is not allowed. If it is simply a fact, why don't we see the word used across the sources in article voice? What entitles us to take the additional step they appear pretty careful not to take? Regulov (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  According to you, what is the correct word to use that is summarizing and not synthesizing? FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  Should we use the term "targeting" instead, as it does in the lead of Transgender rights in the United States (last paragraph)? DN (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  The discussion is below. Regulov (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  By your argument ("If the sources do not say outright in article voice that the administration is engaging in ______, it is synthesizing and not summarizing for a Wikipedia editor to do so"), you are proposing synthesis below, not summary. "You are not basing your judgement solely on the dictionary definition, but also on your own sense that the actions described by the sources together merit the term." According to your argument, we cannot use our own words, and we cannot use our judgment to assess whether a word is accurate for summarizing in our own words, directly contradicting "The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in one's own words..." (emphasis added). FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  The key problem (as Astaire notes below) is that "persecution" is highly contentious. Needless to say (or so I thought), I do not hold that editors cannot go beyond strict quotation. Regulov (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  WP's policies do not require that the word "persecution" be used in lots of news reports on Trump's policies towards trans people. They do indeed. Please read WP:BLPSTYLE and MOS:LABEL.

  • WP:BLPSTYLE: Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources.
  • MOS:LABEL: Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

  The disagreement here at this RFC is evidence that "persecution" is a contentious label, and those arguing to use it have not shown that the term is commonly used in reliable sources. Astaire (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Not sure how many mentions it needs to be "common," but here are some examples,. I expect I could find others, and I assume that the references in Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration have some others:

  • "Those who spoke to NPR for this story say the policy change is yet another example of the Trump administration's persecution of the LGBTQ+ community by creating new barriers in their daily lives." (NPR)
  • "The [United States] has been regarded as a desired destination for immigrants seeking to escape targeted policies or persecution—including LGBTQ+ people. Now, it’s become a place many trans people, and their families, are trying to leave for the same reason." (Time)
  • "Smith says that several of the people who have contacted her seeking [legal] representation describe different forms of persecution: 'Lack of healthcare, the inability to have their official documents reflect their correct gender, officials who feel emboldened to deny them services… There are several types of abuse that the community is currently experiencing.'" (El Pais)
  • “Project 2025 [is] a US-based conservative initiative that would provide the next Republican president—President-elect Donald Trump—with a series of policy proposals that could be made official through executive order. […] By targeting trans communities through preemptive policymaking and legislation, this far-right initiative undermines autonomy and access to essential resources. It creates a climate of fear, uncertainty, and insecurity for trans communities, who will face even further risks of violence, discrimination, and legal persecution as a result.” (Special Issue: Queer Matters in Criminology) If you object that that’s about Project 2025, not the Trump administration, Trump has enacted many elements of Project 2025’s blueprint, including the portions directed against transgender people, which it calls “transgender ideology” (see, e.g., the LGBTQ+ rights section here).

  You and I disagree, and the closer has seen more than enough of my !vote reasoning to consider it when closing, so I don't plan to respond further. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  One of WP's many problems is that editors don't feel they have to work out a solution themselves, preferring to just leave it to a closer, and therefore don't engage in meaningful effort to arrive at a compromise.

  The first three of these citations are describing the opinions of people the reporter spoke to. In each case, the writer is exquisitely careful not to step over the line. The claim that the administration is persecuting people is attributed to others. Maybe that's what we should do? As for the fourth, I'm not sure why it would serve as a reliable source on the second Trump administration, to say nothing of a straight biography of Donald Trump, given that it is talking about the purely imagined future consequences of his then-future administration's presumed implementation of a policy white-paper. This is the kind of hard-hitting evidence we get when our sourcing method is to search for anything combining the words "persecution", "trans", and "Trump". Regulov (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yes has anyone actually contested that his policies constitute hostility and ill-treatment towards trans people? That's the dictionary definition that comes up for me. I actually struggle to think of a hypothetical person who would argue that it doesn't, and reliable sources are overwhelming in describing it as such. Arguing that using it is reliant on RSes which spend thousands of words talking about the topic using the exact word is unconvincing to me. We determine what the consensus stance of RSes are, not what the consensus word-choice is, and we really don't want to make that solely off of sources that dedicate a dozen words to describing the policy before moving on (which are the only sources I'd expect to make as sweeping a summary as we are required to do). I am open to other words and this discussion has not spent enough time on finding sources which look at his administration's policies from a bird's eye view, but I can't particularly imagine the alternative word choices (e.g., "oppression") as resulting in a stronger consensuses. 1brianm7 (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  As to your very first sentence… well, yes. One of the debates among editors in this discussion is “are these actions harmful, or fair?” Although they are a minority of viewpoints, I guess we can’t say it’s obvious that trans people are being mistreated by this administration’s policies. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 03:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think that anyone, even someone who supports Trump's transgender policy, could not reasonably argue that his policies are not very directly targeted at harming trans people. Someone who supports him might think that's okay or even good, but not that it's not happening. If they did believe his policies aren't harming trans people and for the purpose of harming trans people that means they are not aware of basic facts about what they're talking about. Loki (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think that they might actually say that those policies are helping people who are suffering from a social contagion. In conservative media this issue is predominantly framed as 'medical transitioning (especially of children) does irreparable harm that the subject later regrets'. Your proposition seems to suggest that they revel in being villains, which I don't think is a very good theory of the conservative mind. Riposte97 (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Correct, but that’s not how RS frame it. They use terms like restricting rights, prohibiting trans people from using their identified gender for official government things, etc. Not remedying a mental health issue or protecting children. I am not attempting to straw man conservative view points (I will gladly strike my comment if it is construed as such), rather point out that most sources we use on Wikipedia do use negative language to describe these actions. And that’s fine, and it’s fine for us to reflect that in our article bodies. Nobody thinks Wikipedia is implicitly endorsing a side in this debate. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 05:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  I totally agree with you. Most RS do say that these policies negatively impact trans people. I was referring to Loki's comment only, and agree that we should use some word that connotes a negative impact, just not persecution which has other associations. Riposte97 (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  I do so argue. I think it is unlikely that the intent of the architects of the policies is primarily to harm trans people. It is a question of framing: the effort to restrict and ban abortion is not, from the perspective of those engaged in it, an effort to oppress women, but an effort to end baby-killing. We should, and do, inform the reader that these activists' opponents believe banning abortion in fact constitutes oppression of women; but we must be careful not to attribute this motive to pro-life activists in Wikivoice. Similarly, some people believe that the maximalist interpretation of trans rights entails an unacceptable abridgement of rights more firmly established in law, particularly those of women. Preventing this infringement may seem to these people more important than accommodating an extreme minority. It is one thing to say that critics believe the administration's project harms trans people; another to say the administration has designed its policies with that object in mind. Regulov (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  I was being a bit coy in the first sentence as, after reading the entire discussion at the time, I believe editors had only argued that "some people believe it doesn't constitute this", no editor had said "it doesn't constitute this". My reasoning for saying that was, as Loki said, that I didn't think anyone would contest that. I hadn't comprehended the point Riposte97 brings up which probably because we all seem to agree that RSes give it no credence. 1brianm7 (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• No - per WP:NPOV, best we use a more neutral word. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Yes, it's a reasonable summary of the sources above and ones like these These political and rhetorical actions had a direct impact on the lives of TGD people as the Trump administration sought to eradicate their right to exist and continues to do so. This cissexist discourse in the public sphere created a cycle of anti-TGD sentimentality and discrimination, increasing stigmatization against TGD people, isolating them, and divesting them of their agency and power in the hegemonic sphere.^[1] Other peer-reviewed sources like ^[2][3][4][5] use similar language; and most high-quality academic sourcing is of a similar tone per the above. "Persecution" is a reasonable one-word summary of this; "adverse" is wildly out of line with it. That said, if we're going to propose alternative terms common in the sources, discriminatory, systemic discrimination, or discriminatory targeting, are the actual formulations that reflect the language most peer-reviewed academic sources seem to use. I think that they parse to the same meaning as persecution, but since I think that, I wouldn't have any objection to switching to discriminatory policies if the main objection is that we ought to be using the exact wording the best sources do. The point, though, is that we do acutally need to reflect the seriousness with which the highest-quality sources treat this, which the few alternative proposals for language do not do. NPOV is about accurately summarizing the sources, not about toning down their fairly clearly serious language ourselves. --Aquillion (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• No RS do not refer his policies towards transgenders as "persecution" I would recommend sticking strictly to sources. Also, "persecution" is not very neutral per WP:POV. Most mainstream media refer to his policies as “targeting transgender people” or “restricting rights” or “anti-trans policies.”

Most sources that use the word "persecution" are commentaries or advocacy groups. Also, according to WP:BLP, editors should avoid using loaded words. Frankserafini87 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, keep. We base our writing on reliable published sources such as well-established news organizations and WP:RSEDITORIAL, if the authors are "specialists and recognized experts". The majority of reliable sources uses terms such as banned, censored, barred, and targeted (within the context of "targeted schools, universities, and cultural institutions accused of promoting what his government calls "gender ideology"). We would be introducing bias, i.e., violating WP:NPOV by softening the language to something we personally consider to be more appropriate. Persecution is an apt distinguishing name for actions taken and language used by Trump and his administration; I wouldn't oppose the "systemic discrimination" or "discriminatory targeting" mentioned by Aquillion. See also my comments here, here, and here. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• No, as I am unsure it is put that way by most RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
• Yes per FactorOpinion and others. Ideally, Wikivoice shouldn't copy its sources. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yes per MjolnirPants and others. blair (she/her) chat 01:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes per sources produced by MjolnirPants. It is obvious to any unbiased observer looking at the sources MjolnirPants produced that the recent restrictions placed on transgender rights is persecution and cannot be reasonably interpreted as anything other than persecution, which is defined as to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically: to cause to suffer because of belief. "To cause to suffer because of belief" [that they are X gender] is met without a doubt, and punishing to injure/afflict seems pretty straightforward based on the systematic enforcement of sex-segregated spaces and denial of recognition of trans preferred identities (e.g. Executive Order 14168).

A note: it's not WP:SYNTH to claim persecution if the word "persecution" is not used in most RS per WP:NOTCOM, which allows us to use synth when something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it. The sources (notably the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention) are saying there's early warning flags of genocide against transgender people. If there is discrimination, segregation, and early warning signs of genocide against trans people, then yes there is of course persecution. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to be a dick, but I did ask people not to ping me here. I have no interest in engaging with the nonsense that passes for argumentation on politics pages.

For example, see the multiple claims that 'no' reliable sources use the term (which I have conclusively proven wrong above, before many were even made), the claims that only 'partisan' sources use such language (apparently, the AP is an 'advocacy' group, who knew?), and the absolutely inane and divorced-from-reality complaint that saying we are here to summarize what reliable sources say on a subject "flies in the face of WP:RS, WP:OR, and half a dozen other policies and guidelines".

Many editors have the patience to deal with such nonsense. I am not one of them.

I have no problem with anyone referring to my comment. I have no problem with any good-faith editor coming to my talk page to ask me to expound upon a certain view or respond to some critique of my comment. But I don't wish to have my attention drawn back here, where curiosity drives me to be exposed to the absolutely shit-show that is AmPol. Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no interest in engaging with the nonsense that passes for argumentation on politics pages. Except when you do. We are not required to respond to pings, especially when we've asked not to be pinged. FWIW, I agree that AmPol is dysfunctional, but this is hardly the place to discuss that (even if you had a viable solution). In my view (see my signature), it's bad form to drop in, throw some Molotov cocktails about meta issues that don't belong on this page, and disappear. Your mileage may differ. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 13:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The current section on "Racial and gender views" in the Trump biography mostly from 2018-2019 is four comprehensive paragraphs long and supplemented with a photo and caption. Separately, Trump's targeting of foreign heads of state such as Maduro and Khamenei in the main body of the article currently has one sentence for Maduro and two sentences for Khamenei. Four paragraphs for 'Racial and gender' discussions as opposed to three sentences for covering 'Trump's targeting of heads of state' on foreign soil seems like a large disproportion of allocated page space given the relative importance to the topics being discussed. It seem like it might be useful to consider doing this the other way around for the benefit of the article: for example, have a full-sized section for discussing the "Targeting of foreign heads of state", while on the other hand the 'Race and Gender' section ought to be better summarized as 2-3 sentences in the 2018-2019 subsection in the main body of the article. Requesting comments from editors, if the current 4 paragraphs for 'Race and Gender' as opposed to 3 sentences for "Trump targeting heads of state" is the correct proportion for the Trump biography as a whole, or, if it might be better the other way around? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Certainly agree with this. It's a symptom of the intense polarisation on this page that we cannot take a holistic view of the subject. The above point is just one area of incongruity. Another glaring one is the dearth of early life and personal details. However, there are sacred cows buried in every section. Perhaps some sort of information importance ranking could resolve this, but I'm not sure exactly how that might work. Riposte97 (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Please, drop the stick already. Trump targeting heads of state, 2026 Iran/Middle East war or whatever that turns into is a developing current event. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The article should at least cover both February and March for the Iran death of a head of state in February, along with the March call for unconditional surrender. One or two sentences for each months seems the minimum that should be included in the Trump biography. Your revert of the March portion edit added today, while keeping only the February part or the edit, seems at least a little over-zealous. The March portion one-sentence revert here should be restored by any editor responsibly following news of the war in Iran. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. Not summary level, shows no understanding of the purpose and mission of this article. See WP:TRUMPOTA for alternative articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 23:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, by expanding on recent events? we'd be undoing attempts to shorten this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Yourself and myself were both a part of that discussion and I'm understanding your point. The issue I've tried to raise here in this thread is that the current Trump biography has four comprehensive paragraphs about Trump's 'gender and race' views from 2018-2019, but not even 3-4 sentences about operation 'Epic Fury' now in its second week. Its starting to look as if the page editors who were here from the time of the first presidency, as top editors from back then, seem to be applying an unorthodox and unexpected setting of priorities. The Trump biography as a whole seems to be stating that Trump's views about 'gender and race' from 2018-2019 are far more important than Trump's massive military attack in the Middle East now in its second week. What is the priority issue here? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to cutting down the 'gender and race' bit, from Trump's first term. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Its not difficult for me to go along with you fully on this. If you have a condensed version of those 4 very long paragraphs currently in that section at this time, then I'm likely to support you. If you could put your shortened version here it might be very useful to gain further support. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's policies is WP:NOTNEWS, item 2. The Trump announcements you added to the article here and here are newsworthy events because he's the president and commander in chief, and there's nobody left at the DOD to talk some sense into him. They're not events of enduring notability — wait 15 minutes, and there will be other newsworthy announcements. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

One or two sentences for each months seems the minimum: this is not "timeline of the 2026 Iran war". As I was writing the preceding sentence I started to wonder, checked, and, sure enough, there is a Timeline of the 2026 Iran war, linked in the hatnote of 2026 Iran war. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Aside from being week two of bombing Iran now, there is this news report that it is now over 5000 target strikes against Iran ordered by Trump . Your reference to this as NOTNEWS seems a little detached from the actual sustained bombings done by Trump. This issue seems much more pertinent to understating the Trump biography than your current RfC about the St Johns image; both the Iran war and the Venezuela foreign policy issues are acts of war and ought to be expanded to something like the coverage given to 'gender and race' issue currently occupying large page-use real estate on the Trump biography. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTNEWS, item 2. BTW, Anadolu Agency is the news agency controlled by the Turkish government. It's not a generally reliable source. The specific article you linked to boils down to "US Central Command said". Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Its covered by NBC here , its covered by NewsOnAir here , and its covered on OneIndiaNews here . How many cites are needed in order for editors to stop referring to this as NOTNEWS. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, its now over 6,000 strikes against Iran by Trump here . Should this be expanded in the Trump biography? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems to me that you misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS. Of course RS are covering events as they happen; that's their job. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper: News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events, and the consensus (#37) for this article says that content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. That doesn't include the day-to-day coverage of a war as it unfolds or RS reporting the latest announcements of Trump and others. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC) Speaking about "others", in this case Rubio: The New York Times mentioned this war-adjacent AI-generated video. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

No misunderstanding of NOTNEWS here; if these were subjective opinion pieces about Trump and his random rhetoric, then the statements could be delayed for inclusion on Wikipedia. However, when the item is major news such as overt acts of war, or deadly intent upon foreign heads of state, or other irreversible acts of nature, then there really is not the same issue with 'delayed' or 'filtering time' for new edits; the events are here to stay. The deadly intent by Trump upon a foreign head of state is such an event and the edit ought to be restored to the article as a one sentence edit in agreement with Slatersteven. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

None of that warrants inclusion in this article, which needs to be both high-level and retrospective with the benefit of a good amount of historical perspective. There is zero historical perspective the following day, or the following month, and very little the following year. "Summary style" doesn't mean including abbreviated/truncated accounts of the daily play-by-play; it's a different form of writing entirely.

AI Overview
A typical US presidential biography generally contains roughly 250 to 300 words per page. Given that comprehensive presidential biographies frequently span 700 to 900 pages, a single volume can easily exceed 200,000 to 250,000 words.

This compared to the ~12,000 words of this article. Obviously we can't write content at the level of a book-form presidential biography.

See WP:TRUMPOTA for alternative articles where these principles don't apply so much. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 19:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

One line, no more. This belongs in his second-term article. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

One line addition was reverted, can it be restored by another editor? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Not untill we have consensus, do we? Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for putting process first. Going forward, please wait until there is a reasonable consensus for the edit. My opposition is concisely summarized in the edit summary of my revert. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 17:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

See answer above to Space4Time; this is not a subjective opinion piece subject to editorial back and forth. An attack of deadly intentions against a foreign head of state by Trump needs to go into the article; there is no reversal of this event once it is put on the record by his own Cabinet. The one sentence edit ought to be restored in agreement with Slatersteven. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

It is probably due that Trump has killed one Supreme Leader and, reportedly, maimed another. Perhaps as a rider clause on the existing sentence? I also suspect that the Iran war will end up being far more impactful and relevant than much of what's currently on the page (we still give a whole paragraph to the church photo op), but won't front-run the comprehensive sources that will come out when it's all over. Riposte97 (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

If the attack upon the father as the leader of Iran is already in the lede, then the attack upon the son as the new leader of Iran should also go into the main body of the article, at the least, in the third week of this war. This is the largest USA military action in the last 20 years and its under the direct orders of Donald Trump. Why is this material being blocked from addition to the Trump biography at this time? Can we allow Slatersteven to go ahead with this edit? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Not without a consensus. Please stop using accusatory and confrontational language like "blocked", which reflects poorly on you and violates Wikipedia PAGs. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 16:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Where's the mention of Donald Trump's longtime Mafia connections with the Genovese crime family and his Brighton Beach affiliations? Why is that omitted from this fairy tale article? New Yorkers have known about Donald's deep Mafia connections for nearly 50 years, as did the FBI. Why isn't this included here in Wikipedia? It can certainly be documented with verifiable sources. Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

What New Yorkers have known is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. If It can certainly be documented with verifiable sources, do so. Otherwise this discussion will be closed early. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 10:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Here are two sources: David Cay Johnston in Politico, and David Corn in Mother Jones. The Mafia ran the unions in the cement business in New York and controlled the supply of the ready-mix concrete Trump used in the construction of skyscrapers. He paid them off by paying inflated prices. I don't know whether this is mentioned in one of the myriad of Trump-related articles. Doesn't exactly attest to great business acumen — other NY developers used a different kind of concrete that wasn't as dependent on the "good will" of the Mafia — but I'm not sure it belongs in this summary-level bio. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see an issue adding this under his Business Affairs section, and maybe the legal subsection? Keep in mind that under reliable sources, though both Politico and Mother Jones are considered reliable, some editors find them bias. This could cause drama. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 22:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Also the biggest challenge would be to keep this neutral as fact and not a statement only intended for defamation. WP:NPOV ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 22:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be relevant in the context of referenced analysis of how Trump is “governing” like a gangster using the state to skim money off the top assasinate anyone he doesn’t like collect tribute and seek retribution etc source : everywhere . ~2026-10872-30 (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

See wp:blp. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

This feels a bit like a troll comment, though I don't disagree. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 20:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)